Sign in with Facebook
Kevin's Reviews > 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
by
by
Peterson vs. Peterson, or
1 Rule for Reactionism: An Anesthesia to Chaos�
Preamble:
--I’ve been pondering how to review this book for over a year, resulting in 2 halves:
1) “The personal is political�:
--We all start from somewhere not of our choosing.
…Instead of diving immediately into debating the most divisive topics (something social media seems designed to exploit), I’ll start the first half by addressing my past self (a pragmatic approach to empathy); I want to highlight the many paths we may take.
2) The analytical: an immanent critique:
--My norm elsewhere is skip the personal and jump into the analytical, but there’s a reason this “self-help� book gets so much more readership compared with critical nonfiction. This half was a lot of fun to write, and I had to remind myself to stop before I ended up with an entire companion book.
--I’ll try to honour Peterson’s “RULE 9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t�, as part of an “immanent critique� (ironically inspired by Peterson’s bogeyman):
i) Assume the best of Peterson’s ideals (which often start as general “self-help� ideals, after all):
--Note: Peterson has cleverly coupled these abstract ideals with clear individualist actions (i.e. plenty of readers say they learned the importance of standing up straight to show confidence like a lobster, tidying your room, maintaining good sleep routines, etc.). Such individualist advice are repeated in the mountain of “self-help� books and are not my concern, with the notable exception on parenting (which I already unpacked here: The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture).
ii) Contrast with Peterson’s application of these ideals, to reveal how his practice contradicts his ideals:
--The abstract ideals are applied within specific world-views (political; see ).
--In practice, readers are lured not only by “self-help� ideals with clear individualist action; what distinguishes Peterson is his visceral vocalization of certain symptoms of social distress (�suffer� appears 139 times in the book! Also: “anxiety�, “depression�, “hopelessness and despair�, “no value, no meaning�� the “cDz� which Peterson has the “aԳپdzٱ� for), which the status quo (we’ll define next) tend to sweep under the rug of ‼Dz�. That’s the bait, with the switch being scapegoating (a key reactionary tactic).
--Both halves (personal and analytical) of my review explore something that haunts me: which (and when) certain ideas/interpretations catch our attention, and where they may lead us�
--: clarifying political terms:
i) پDzԲ�/“rپDzԾ�: supporting a prior status quo (overlaps with “t徱پDzԲ� conservatism). I prefer using “reactionary� over “conservative� when I want to emphasize a right-wing reaction to a status quo crisis (hence the populist rhetoric against the “elites� that conservatism cherishes; note the need to parody left-wing populism, i.e. critiquing the current status quo; think Trump’s first campaign ridiculing competing Republicans and stealing Bernie’s talking points critiquing outsourcing/foreign policy; The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump), with the most glaring example being the Nazis responding to crisis (humiliation losing the imperialist WWI and burdened by reparations) with a mythical traditionalist “Aryan master race� (while parodying left-wing populism of “Socialist� “Workers� Party� in rhetoric, while smashing socialists/communists/labour unions in practice).
ii) “CDzԲپ�: supporting the current status quo, to conserve it. Of course, there is much overlap with “reactionary� since many common values (hierarchy) persist from prior to current status quo, and some “conservatives� (esp. “traditionalists�) may feel displaced by the “liberal� status quo (‼Dz�).
iii) “L�: an absolute mess of a word. In North America, the mainstream cultural use of “liberal� is focused on “socially liberal� (ex. “mܱپܱٳܰ�). However, liberals actually in power are “economically liberal�, i.e. pro-capitalist (ex. Clintons/Bill Gates), so I prefer the term “cosmopolitan capitalism� to emphasize the structural power (economics: capitalism) and surface appearance with hypocritical benefits (social: “mܱپܱٳܰ� takes advantage of the global labour market of [1] educated workers whose education have already been paid for by their home countries, thus “brain drain� on competitors esp. the Global South’s development, and [2] cheap labour, which has always been fundamental to global capitalism from dispossessed serfs filling “dark, Satanic mills� of the Industrial Revolution to slave plantations to “coolie� plantations to modern sweat-shops/migrant plantations; this is also a compromise with decolonization struggles).
…I would use “cosmopolitan capitalism� to describe the current status quo, and we can get into some messy debates on how far back we can apply this term (i.e. entire history of capitalism? But what about colonialism/slavery?). Peterson’s “t徱پDzԲ� lens rhetorically wants to revive “Classical Liberalism� (associated with a vulgarized “free market� Adam Smith) which emphasizes “economically liberal� (pro-capitalism) over “socially liberal� (which is not very “t徱پDzԲ�).
Part 1: “The personal is political�; Past vs. present self:
1) Personal contradictions: Conservative immigrants and the Paradox of “fdz�:
--I don’t need to be a clinical psychologist to appreciate the conservatism of my upbringing in an educated immigrant family:
i) Hypervigilance in detecting and mirroring hierarchies: to gain acceptance (seeking assimilation into new environments). Heightened awareness of what is perceived as “normal� (acceptable).
ii) Predisposed to fiscally-conservative rhetoric: since already politically/socially dislocated, the remaining option seems to be keeping your head down and working for personal economic gain (“pull yourself up by your bootstraps�), with the privilege of an educated background.
iii) Thus, we get the curious paradox of “fdz�: in a capitalist society, money brings social acceptance in a manner that may be more difficult through other social means (given cultural prejudices). This is also a “fdz� from responsibilities, to avoid those messy social relations of where we came from and where we have settled.
2) Status quo contradictions and Reactionary traps:
--Canada’s (also Jordan Peterson’s context) public education system taught me “mܱپܱٳܰ� on a surface level (since real-world capitalism/imperialism are omitted). This is also a curious contradiction for conservative immigrants, who have little incentive to directly support racism. Thus, we get “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative� (socially anti-racist, while supporting capitalism), and the shallow political theatre/capitalism which co-opts/commodifies “identity politics�.
…Canadian schooling taught us little of the power/economic contradictions behind status quo “mܱپܱٳܰ�:
i) “Cosmopolitan capitalism� (in particular the global relationships, i.e. “imperialism�) is the engine of global inequality where money (inherited from colonialism) makes more money, perpetuating imperialist exploitation and kicking away the ladder on the Global South's decolonization/development: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions.
ii) But rhetorically all we hear is “mܱپܱٳܰ�/“democracy�/“foreign aid�/“liberal enlightenment�/“developed countries�/“fdz�/
smug liberal reassurances of ‼Dz� from liberal politicians (Canada’s Trudeau, the US’s Clintons/Obama, the UK’s Blair, etc.). Similarly, we have global corporations branding themselves with the latest fad in (co-opted) “identity politics� while systematically exploiting the global coloured poor; we have female CEOs and CIA directors (2018-2021), greening the US military, and other hypocrisies of peak liberalism.
iii) So, poverty must be the fault of the South’s political “corruption� (thus we need to intervene with “democracy� bombs) and perhaps, even deeper, the fault of “backwards� cultures which the liberal elites are too “Woke� to blame?
iv) Such omissions/contradictions leaves us vulnerable to reactionary opportunists (grifters/con artists) who are eager to voice symptomatic concerns and mock liberal hypocrisies as a bait-and-switch. Bait (parodying leftist populist critiques of capitalism, ex. “globalists�/“corporatists�/Big Pharma/Gates) and switch (scapegoating Jews/immigrants/communists/other identities while somehow still supporting the structural power of capitalism as “fdz�).
--Now, reactionaries thrive during status quo crises. Before such times, they lurk in the shadows. My teenage entertainment was still mostly white noise (no pun intended; I just mean stuff you put on in the background for comfort), which shifted to the birth of podcasts (the comfort of long-form conversations, which our atomized day-to-day grind lack): Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan’s podcast. These bros, like sports and alcohol, served as mind-numbing comfort: Carolla’s hyperbolic rants (where his personal story of construction-worker-to-rich-radio-personality proves status quo meritocracy), Rogan’s stoned interviews (combat sports/fitness/psychedelics/aliens/comedy)�
--I started emerging from my stupor and drifting away from these bros before they really tapped into the market of reactionary politics (before Carolla reached his final form as anti-“Woke� comedic crusader in his 2010 In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks� And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy; I basically went through Rogan’s first 500 episodes, missing Peterson’s first appearance in episode #877 in 2016).
--I even did my undergrad in a Canadian university. While my degree was more technical, I dabbled in Humanities courses and still didn’t receive Peterson’s dreaded ‼Dzٳǻ/Ա-Ѳ澱� brainwashing (i.e. critical thinking?). I remained mostly “apolitical�.
3) Contradictions (Geopolitics) and Traps (Culture Wars):
--Some of my high school classmates eventually walked through the reactionary door. I had the privilege of a personal contradiction (my immigrant background), which provided hints of the global context where those born in the Western bubble lack. Despite parents seeking Western “fdz� (i.e. individual living standards, via assimilation/social dislocation), there was still some recognition of the histories of colonization.
--Contradictions started to mount with the West’s endless “War on Terror�, its “do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do� pageantry of “democracy� bombs. I remember the contrast between my Western bubble bursting vs. the anticlimactic response of first-generation immigrants (i.e. a weary acknowledgment that global violence continues despite their pursuit of individual “fdz�).
--Uncomfortable questions avoided by the “everything is progressing nicely� liberal status quo started to emerge (“why is the Middle East so violent?�, “why is the South so poor?�, Bush’s “why do they hate us?�), greeted by numerous reactionary doors (i.e. culture wars like the “New Atheists� esp. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on the violence of Islam; thankfully this was before triggered reactionaries built their own safe-space echo-chamber on Youtube, i.e. “Social Justice Warriors DESTROYED� videos).
--My immigrant background made me suspicious of the convenient “democracy vs. authoritarian� framing which obscured the imperialist relations. This critical history was the easiest to learn, thanks to the West overthrowing countless popular (including “democratically-elected�) leaders and replacing them with dictators. US geopolitics is so absurd that even Trump parodied anti-interventionist rhetoric in his first campaign.
-Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
4) Contradictions (Capitalism) and Traps (“Economics�):
--While I escaped from reactionary traps on geopolitics (after some struggles with Hitchens/Harris), Rogan misdirected me with the anti-interventionist rhetoric of “right-libertarian� Republican and 2008/2012 US presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul’s surface geopolitical rhetoric didn’t sound too dissimilar from leftist Chomsky (Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance), whom I also started exploring (thanks to an interview in a Rage Against the Machine DVD; well played, fellas).
…However, it was Paul not Chomsky who first pushed me into the abstractions of “economics�, in this case “free market� economics (Mises/Hayek)! By conveniently separating government vs. market, it’s easy to blame the government (which, in the case of the US, happens to be an empire)! Meanwhile, what is the “market� besides from “free contracts�? Step-by-step, where ideas can lead us�
--“Free market� fundamentalists are comprised of the smaller “Austrian school� (Mises/Hayek) and the larger “Neoclassical� school (i.e. “mainstream economics�; “Chicago school� Milton Friedman, etc.); they both want to reclaim (vulgarize) “Classical economics� (“Classical liberalism� with focus on liberal ("free") markets; Peterson identifies as a “Classical liberal� in the vulgarized context).
…Hilariously, today’s “Neoclassical�/“free market� fundamentalists can be seen as “aԳپ-�: it was bogey-man Marx who took “Classical economics� so seriously (i.e. Adam Smith/David Ricardo etc.) by applying “immanent critique� on the Classical(!) frameworks of class divisions/“labour theory of value�/“tendency for the rate of profit to fall�, etc. The contradictions exposed became so anti-capitalist that pro-capitalist economists had to abandon the Classical frameworks (“DESTROYED�, lol). Today’s “Marxist� economists take much more seriously the Classical frameworks (from Michael Hudson to ).
--I remember reading passages from Mises to my dad, about how “free market�/“free trade� (“cosmopolitan capitalism�) brings international peace/prosperity because both sides are voluntarily dependent and mutually benefiting. My dad’s response was basically “you should think about this some more�. Imagine trying to sell “free trade� to someone with the historical context of China, where the British sold “free trade� rhetoric along with chests of opium on gunboats, bringing the prosperity of the “Opium Wars�/“Unequal Treaties�/“Century of Humiliation� (where life expectancy in China fell to the 30’s).
…Selling “fdz� through violence; note how it was easier for me to avoid the “War on Terror� freedom-and-democracy-bombs trap, but more difficult with the abstractions of “economics�. Amitav Ghosh artistically captures this in his trilogy on the Britain-India-China opium triangle that shifted the world-system from Asia to Europe:
…See the comments below for the 2nd half of the review:
“Part 2: Peterson vs. Peterson, an immanent critique�:
�1) Peterson, the Lost Marxist?�
�2) Peterson, the Disillusioned Sanderista?�
�3) Peterson, the Red Scare boomer?�
1 Rule for Reactionism: An Anesthesia to Chaos�
Preamble:
--I’ve been pondering how to review this book for over a year, resulting in 2 halves:
1) “The personal is political�:
--We all start from somewhere not of our choosing.
…Instead of diving immediately into debating the most divisive topics (something social media seems designed to exploit), I’ll start the first half by addressing my past self (a pragmatic approach to empathy); I want to highlight the many paths we may take.
2) The analytical: an immanent critique:
--My norm elsewhere is skip the personal and jump into the analytical, but there’s a reason this “self-help� book gets so much more readership compared with critical nonfiction. This half was a lot of fun to write, and I had to remind myself to stop before I ended up with an entire companion book.
--I’ll try to honour Peterson’s “RULE 9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t�, as part of an “immanent critique� (ironically inspired by Peterson’s bogeyman):
i) Assume the best of Peterson’s ideals (which often start as general “self-help� ideals, after all):
--Note: Peterson has cleverly coupled these abstract ideals with clear individualist actions (i.e. plenty of readers say they learned the importance of standing up straight to show confidence like a lobster, tidying your room, maintaining good sleep routines, etc.). Such individualist advice are repeated in the mountain of “self-help� books and are not my concern, with the notable exception on parenting (which I already unpacked here: The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture).
ii) Contrast with Peterson’s application of these ideals, to reveal how his practice contradicts his ideals:
--The abstract ideals are applied within specific world-views (political; see ).
--In practice, readers are lured not only by “self-help� ideals with clear individualist action; what distinguishes Peterson is his visceral vocalization of certain symptoms of social distress (�suffer� appears 139 times in the book! Also: “anxiety�, “depression�, “hopelessness and despair�, “no value, no meaning�� the “cDz� which Peterson has the “aԳپdzٱ� for), which the status quo (we’ll define next) tend to sweep under the rug of ‼Dz�. That’s the bait, with the switch being scapegoating (a key reactionary tactic).
--Both halves (personal and analytical) of my review explore something that haunts me: which (and when) certain ideas/interpretations catch our attention, and where they may lead us�
--: clarifying political terms:
i) پDzԲ�/“rپDzԾ�: supporting a prior status quo (overlaps with “t徱پDzԲ� conservatism). I prefer using “reactionary� over “conservative� when I want to emphasize a right-wing reaction to a status quo crisis (hence the populist rhetoric against the “elites� that conservatism cherishes; note the need to parody left-wing populism, i.e. critiquing the current status quo; think Trump’s first campaign ridiculing competing Republicans and stealing Bernie’s talking points critiquing outsourcing/foreign policy; The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump), with the most glaring example being the Nazis responding to crisis (humiliation losing the imperialist WWI and burdened by reparations) with a mythical traditionalist “Aryan master race� (while parodying left-wing populism of “Socialist� “Workers� Party� in rhetoric, while smashing socialists/communists/labour unions in practice).
ii) “CDzԲپ�: supporting the current status quo, to conserve it. Of course, there is much overlap with “reactionary� since many common values (hierarchy) persist from prior to current status quo, and some “conservatives� (esp. “traditionalists�) may feel displaced by the “liberal� status quo (‼Dz�).
iii) “L�: an absolute mess of a word. In North America, the mainstream cultural use of “liberal� is focused on “socially liberal� (ex. “mܱپܱٳܰ�). However, liberals actually in power are “economically liberal�, i.e. pro-capitalist (ex. Clintons/Bill Gates), so I prefer the term “cosmopolitan capitalism� to emphasize the structural power (economics: capitalism) and surface appearance with hypocritical benefits (social: “mܱپܱٳܰ� takes advantage of the global labour market of [1] educated workers whose education have already been paid for by their home countries, thus “brain drain� on competitors esp. the Global South’s development, and [2] cheap labour, which has always been fundamental to global capitalism from dispossessed serfs filling “dark, Satanic mills� of the Industrial Revolution to slave plantations to “coolie� plantations to modern sweat-shops/migrant plantations; this is also a compromise with decolonization struggles).
…I would use “cosmopolitan capitalism� to describe the current status quo, and we can get into some messy debates on how far back we can apply this term (i.e. entire history of capitalism? But what about colonialism/slavery?). Peterson’s “t徱پDzԲ� lens rhetorically wants to revive “Classical Liberalism� (associated with a vulgarized “free market� Adam Smith) which emphasizes “economically liberal� (pro-capitalism) over “socially liberal� (which is not very “t徱پDzԲ�).
Part 1: “The personal is political�; Past vs. present self:
1) Personal contradictions: Conservative immigrants and the Paradox of “fdz�:
--I don’t need to be a clinical psychologist to appreciate the conservatism of my upbringing in an educated immigrant family:
i) Hypervigilance in detecting and mirroring hierarchies: to gain acceptance (seeking assimilation into new environments). Heightened awareness of what is perceived as “normal� (acceptable).
ii) Predisposed to fiscally-conservative rhetoric: since already politically/socially dislocated, the remaining option seems to be keeping your head down and working for personal economic gain (“pull yourself up by your bootstraps�), with the privilege of an educated background.
iii) Thus, we get the curious paradox of “fdz�: in a capitalist society, money brings social acceptance in a manner that may be more difficult through other social means (given cultural prejudices). This is also a “fdz� from responsibilities, to avoid those messy social relations of where we came from and where we have settled.
2) Status quo contradictions and Reactionary traps:
--Canada’s (also Jordan Peterson’s context) public education system taught me “mܱپܱٳܰ� on a surface level (since real-world capitalism/imperialism are omitted). This is also a curious contradiction for conservative immigrants, who have little incentive to directly support racism. Thus, we get “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative� (socially anti-racist, while supporting capitalism), and the shallow political theatre/capitalism which co-opts/commodifies “identity politics�.
…Canadian schooling taught us little of the power/economic contradictions behind status quo “mܱپܱٳܰ�:
i) “Cosmopolitan capitalism� (in particular the global relationships, i.e. “imperialism�) is the engine of global inequality where money (inherited from colonialism) makes more money, perpetuating imperialist exploitation and kicking away the ladder on the Global South's decolonization/development: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions.
ii) But rhetorically all we hear is “mܱپܱٳܰ�/“democracy�/“foreign aid�/“liberal enlightenment�/“developed countries�/“fdz�/
smug liberal reassurances of ‼Dz� from liberal politicians (Canada’s Trudeau, the US’s Clintons/Obama, the UK’s Blair, etc.). Similarly, we have global corporations branding themselves with the latest fad in (co-opted) “identity politics� while systematically exploiting the global coloured poor; we have female CEOs and CIA directors (2018-2021), greening the US military, and other hypocrisies of peak liberalism.
iii) So, poverty must be the fault of the South’s political “corruption� (thus we need to intervene with “democracy� bombs) and perhaps, even deeper, the fault of “backwards� cultures which the liberal elites are too “Woke� to blame?
iv) Such omissions/contradictions leaves us vulnerable to reactionary opportunists (grifters/con artists) who are eager to voice symptomatic concerns and mock liberal hypocrisies as a bait-and-switch. Bait (parodying leftist populist critiques of capitalism, ex. “globalists�/“corporatists�/Big Pharma/Gates) and switch (scapegoating Jews/immigrants/communists/other identities while somehow still supporting the structural power of capitalism as “fdz�).
--Now, reactionaries thrive during status quo crises. Before such times, they lurk in the shadows. My teenage entertainment was still mostly white noise (no pun intended; I just mean stuff you put on in the background for comfort), which shifted to the birth of podcasts (the comfort of long-form conversations, which our atomized day-to-day grind lack): Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan’s podcast. These bros, like sports and alcohol, served as mind-numbing comfort: Carolla’s hyperbolic rants (where his personal story of construction-worker-to-rich-radio-personality proves status quo meritocracy), Rogan’s stoned interviews (combat sports/fitness/psychedelics/aliens/comedy)�
--I started emerging from my stupor and drifting away from these bros before they really tapped into the market of reactionary politics (before Carolla reached his final form as anti-“Woke� comedic crusader in his 2010 In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks� And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy; I basically went through Rogan’s first 500 episodes, missing Peterson’s first appearance in episode #877 in 2016).
--I even did my undergrad in a Canadian university. While my degree was more technical, I dabbled in Humanities courses and still didn’t receive Peterson’s dreaded ‼Dzٳǻ/Ա-Ѳ澱� brainwashing (i.e. critical thinking?). I remained mostly “apolitical�.
3) Contradictions (Geopolitics) and Traps (Culture Wars):
--Some of my high school classmates eventually walked through the reactionary door. I had the privilege of a personal contradiction (my immigrant background), which provided hints of the global context where those born in the Western bubble lack. Despite parents seeking Western “fdz� (i.e. individual living standards, via assimilation/social dislocation), there was still some recognition of the histories of colonization.
--Contradictions started to mount with the West’s endless “War on Terror�, its “do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do� pageantry of “democracy� bombs. I remember the contrast between my Western bubble bursting vs. the anticlimactic response of first-generation immigrants (i.e. a weary acknowledgment that global violence continues despite their pursuit of individual “fdz�).
--Uncomfortable questions avoided by the “everything is progressing nicely� liberal status quo started to emerge (“why is the Middle East so violent?�, “why is the South so poor?�, Bush’s “why do they hate us?�), greeted by numerous reactionary doors (i.e. culture wars like the “New Atheists� esp. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on the violence of Islam; thankfully this was before triggered reactionaries built their own safe-space echo-chamber on Youtube, i.e. “Social Justice Warriors DESTROYED� videos).
--My immigrant background made me suspicious of the convenient “democracy vs. authoritarian� framing which obscured the imperialist relations. This critical history was the easiest to learn, thanks to the West overthrowing countless popular (including “democratically-elected�) leaders and replacing them with dictators. US geopolitics is so absurd that even Trump parodied anti-interventionist rhetoric in his first campaign.
-Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
4) Contradictions (Capitalism) and Traps (“Economics�):
--While I escaped from reactionary traps on geopolitics (after some struggles with Hitchens/Harris), Rogan misdirected me with the anti-interventionist rhetoric of “right-libertarian� Republican and 2008/2012 US presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul’s surface geopolitical rhetoric didn’t sound too dissimilar from leftist Chomsky (Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance), whom I also started exploring (thanks to an interview in a Rage Against the Machine DVD; well played, fellas).
…However, it was Paul not Chomsky who first pushed me into the abstractions of “economics�, in this case “free market� economics (Mises/Hayek)! By conveniently separating government vs. market, it’s easy to blame the government (which, in the case of the US, happens to be an empire)! Meanwhile, what is the “market� besides from “free contracts�? Step-by-step, where ideas can lead us�
--“Free market� fundamentalists are comprised of the smaller “Austrian school� (Mises/Hayek) and the larger “Neoclassical� school (i.e. “mainstream economics�; “Chicago school� Milton Friedman, etc.); they both want to reclaim (vulgarize) “Classical economics� (“Classical liberalism� with focus on liberal ("free") markets; Peterson identifies as a “Classical liberal� in the vulgarized context).
…Hilariously, today’s “Neoclassical�/“free market� fundamentalists can be seen as “aԳپ-�: it was bogey-man Marx who took “Classical economics� so seriously (i.e. Adam Smith/David Ricardo etc.) by applying “immanent critique� on the Classical(!) frameworks of class divisions/“labour theory of value�/“tendency for the rate of profit to fall�, etc. The contradictions exposed became so anti-capitalist that pro-capitalist economists had to abandon the Classical frameworks (“DESTROYED�, lol). Today’s “Marxist� economists take much more seriously the Classical frameworks (from Michael Hudson to ).
--I remember reading passages from Mises to my dad, about how “free market�/“free trade� (“cosmopolitan capitalism�) brings international peace/prosperity because both sides are voluntarily dependent and mutually benefiting. My dad’s response was basically “you should think about this some more�. Imagine trying to sell “free trade� to someone with the historical context of China, where the British sold “free trade� rhetoric along with chests of opium on gunboats, bringing the prosperity of the “Opium Wars�/“Unequal Treaties�/“Century of Humiliation� (where life expectancy in China fell to the 30’s).
…Selling “fdz� through violence; note how it was easier for me to avoid the “War on Terror� freedom-and-democracy-bombs trap, but more difficult with the abstractions of “economics�. Amitav Ghosh artistically captures this in his trilogy on the Britain-India-China opium triangle that shifted the world-system from Asia to Europe:
Bahram smiled to himself as he listened: the arguments were marvellously simple yet irrefutable. Really, there was no language like English for turning lies into legalisms. [River of Smoke]…On the nonfiction side: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
…See the comments below for the 2nd half of the review:
“Part 2: Peterson vs. Peterson, an immanent critique�:
�1) Peterson, the Lost Marxist?�
�2) Peterson, the Disillusioned Sanderista?�
�3) Peterson, the Red Scare boomer?�
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
12 Rules for Life.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 30, 2022
–
Started Reading
December 23, 2022
–
Finished Reading
October 9, 2023
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-26 of 26 (26 new)
date
newest »
newest »
1) Peterson, the Lost Marxist?: --Just take a moment with this passage. Read the entire passage first to appreciate its flow, then consult my numbered commentaries.
--A mainstream reader (with minimal exposure to critiques of capitalism, heck even critical definitions of capitalism, despite the “Woke agenda�), lost in the daily grind, would surely find this passage profound! I still find this passage moving, despite knowing where this lure will be misdirected towards� [bold emphases added]
Before the dawn of the scientific worldview [1], reality was construed differently. Being was understood as a place of action, not a place of things [2]. It was understood as something more akin to story or drama. That story or drama was lived, subjective experience [3], as it manifested itself moment to moment in the consciousness of every living person. It was something similar to the stories we tell each other about our lives and their personal significance; something similar to the happenings that novelists describe when they capture existence in the pages of their books. Subjective experience—that includes familiar objects such as trees and clouds, primarily objective in their existence, but also (and more importantly) such things as emotions and dreams as well as hunger, thirst and pain. It is such things, experienced personally, that are the most fundamental elements of human life, from the archaic, dramatic perspective, and they are not easily reducible to the detached and objective—even by the modern reductionist, materialist mind. Take pain, for example—subjective pain. That’s something so real no argument can stand against it. Everyone acts as if their pain is real—ultimately, finally real. Pain matters, more than matter matters. It is for this reason, I believe, that so many of the world’s traditions regard the suffering attendant upon existence as the irreducible truth of Being [4].[1] “scientific worldview�: since Peterson omits “capitalism�, the “West� (already detached from global relations and flattened) is further flattened into “religion� (values/meaning) vs. “science� (materialism). Nothing about the relations between “capitalism� and “science�.
…Consider this: how much is the average person’s everyday experience actually through the lens of the “scientific worldview�, compared to the capitalist worldview? Do I wake up in the morning and think:
a) “ah, the planet Earth is rotating on its axis (thus, morning) while orbiting the sun (which day of the year is it?)�, or
b) “damn, I can’t be late for work (where I earn money to survive)�
…In fact, capitalism takes advantage of the lack of science literacy through advertising/media: Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks.
[2] “a place of action, not a place of things�: Peterson wants us to think “materialism� is solely from the “scientific worldview�, thus obscuring capitalist materialism:
i) Markets for goods (real commodities, “things�) have long existed before “capitalism�, although they were usually at the boundaries of societies. This is because markets are generally instantaneous exchanges between self-seeking strangers (obscuring/severing social relations, only valuing the material commodity exchanged, thus commodity fetishism), whereas non-market social communities relied on social obligations between long-term neighbors: Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
ii) These long-existing societies with peripheral markets (“societies with markets�) only became “capitalism� (“market society�) when market relations spread to 3 peculiar markets (labour/land/money) featuring “fictitious commodities� (humans/nature/purchasing power, which are not “produced� like “things� just for buying/selling).
[3] “story or drama was lived, subjective experience�: oh Peterson, what a lovely description of Marx’s distinction between:
a) в-ܱ�: Varoufakis calls this “experiential value�, and references the long pre-capitalist roots, ex. Aristotle’s “telos�, i.e. end/purpose/goal, vs.
b) market’s “e泦Բ-ܱ�: that market price-tag, for that objectified commodity “thing� where the social relations behind the “thing� are obscured/severed.
…S: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
[4] “sܴڴڱԲ�: elsewhere, Peterson mentions Marx’s “proposition that religion was the opiate of the masses�, which flattens Marx’s passage. And when I read Marx’s actual passage, I cannot help seeing Peterson crying in public appearances, the lure of his constant references to “suffer�/“sܴڴڱԲ� (which appear 139 times in the book!) and his bait-and-switch refusal to acknowledge the “soulless conditions� of capitalism/dominance hierarchies. As Marx puts it [bold emphases added]:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people....The best of Marxism/socialism/leftism are not focused on the opiates (from ideological to physical chemicals) used to ease pain (the level Peterson is stuck on); this numbing is a form of adaptation to pain, and prohibition alone does not address the root causes of suffering.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
...The goal is to build environments that do not promote suffering (vs. Peterson's cop-out of "suffering" being permanent, black-and-white binaries which are worse than useless), thereby the need for opiates (including religious dogma) is lessened. Peterson flattens Marx into a crude materialist, never addressing how alienation (i.e. not just material depravation and economic exploitation, but psychological/spiritual depravation of being replaceable cogs in the capitalist machine, deprived of the decision-making participation required not just for autonomy but to nurture creativity) is central to Marx/leftism.
...We can also look to critical addiction research, ex. "Rat Park", where rats in an isolated cage (social dislocation, alienation) consume the opiates they are fed, but rats in a "park" of diverse activities and social interactions ignore the opiates they are fed.
-Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions
-Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs
-In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction
…For an unpacking of how Peterson obscures trauma (and its perpetuation of “sܴڴڱԲ�), see this review: The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture (this ended up being a full-blown comparison between Peterson vs. Gabor Maté, with some disturbing conclusions on trauma and parenting).
--Imagine this “great transformation� of “capitalist materialism�, where the sacred and ancestral (land, your home, family members) now have a price tag for exchange on various markets. Money/financial markets have only exacerbated this commodification/objectification process (more “things�) while further hiding it in abstraction. As the only writing (a pamphlet) by Marx (then 29 years old) that “intellectual� Peterson has bothered to read says [emphases added]:
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production [to survive market competition/conquest], and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real condition of life, and his relations with his kind [well, not Peterson].…Imagine what all this does to our morality, our value systems, “the stories we tell each other about our lives and their personal significance�. Imagine the “cDz� unleashed as financial capital can traverse the globe in nanoseconds (whereas labour, i.e. humans, can never catch up, although we try� some with greater success thanks to privileges than the many who face militarized borders), creating massive gentrifying booms (hot money) only for the bubble to burst and disappear (capital flight) leaving rust belts and slums.
…Imagine all of this is obscured from the public (as long-term power hides in abstraction, which capitalism is particularly adept at), with the public only seeing the symptoms of booms/busts, with the most visible changing faces being the immigrants, with “public intellectuals� like Jordan Peterson fanning the flames of misdirection by blaming ‼Dzٳǻ/Ա-Ѳ澱� “social justice-dispensing leftist front� (i.e. the few who actually try to directly expose capitalism in various ways) while praising “dominance hierarchies� (which propel capitalist chaos for their private gain, knowing that they are the first, and often the only, to be bailed out when it crashes from contradictions).
…This must be why Jordan Peterson, the priest of lobster “dominance hierarchy�, has to shed so many tears in public appearances. He is suffering from the sheer weight of cognitive dissonance, the Peterson vs. Peterson contradictions.
--Peterson’s deep point supporting “dominance hierarchies� is that it is permanent:
All that matters, from a Darwinian perspective, is permanence—and the dominance hierarchy, however social or cultural it might appear, has been around for some half a billion years. It’s permanent.…Death has been around longer. So should we stop trying to avoid it? Should we actually promote it? Cue Peterson crying.
…Part of him longs to address the “sܴڴڱԲ�, the “cDz�, even if it’s only for certain circles that he can relate to. The other part of him stomps down and fans the flames of “cDz�, offering only anesthesia to his circles. Numb yourselves to the pain of others, for you can still rise above them�
2) Peterson, the Disillusioned Sanderista?--Peterson only directly mentions “capitalism� once. Just as Rogan interviewed and said he would vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020, Peterson offers his Sanderista credentials as follows [emphases added]:
Now, I have some beliefs that might be regarded as left-leaning [buckle your seat belts!]. I think, for example, that the tendency for valuable goods to distribute themselves with pronounced inequality constitutes an ever-present threat to the stability of society [1]. I think there is good evidence for that. That does not mean that the solution to the problem is self-evident. We don’t know how to redistribute wealth without introducing a whole host of other problems [2]. Different Western societies [3] have tried different approaches. The Swedes, for example, push equality to its limit [lol]. The US takes the opposite tack, assuming that the net wealth-creation of a more free-for-all capitalism [4] constitutes the rising tide that lifts all boats. The results of these experiments are not all in [cop-out: when will they ever be all in?] and countries differ very much in relevant ways [misdirection: you are the one relying on comparing countries]. Differences in history, geographic area, population size and ethnic diversity make direct comparisons very difficult. But it certainly is the case that forced redistribution, in the name of utopian equality, is a cure to shame the disease [fear-mongering: how quickly we jump from inequality-might-be-unstable to GULAGS. This is Peterson being “left-leaning�?].[1] “pronounced inequality […] threat to the stability of society�: all dominance hierarchies are concerned with rebellion-from-below (the “mob with pitchforks�), so anyone who would actually deny the threat of gross inequality to hierarchical stability is lying or completely delusional.
[2] “We don’t know how to redistribute wealth without introducing a whole host of other problems�: Well, I guess that’s it then. Note how “redistribute wealth� is never unpacked. The reason real-world capitalism is never explained is because this omission can be auto-filled in with the status quo assumption that “redistribute wealth� means, as the words imply, stealing from the rich.
…Recall Amitav Ghosh: “the arguments were marvellously simple yet irrefutable. Really, there was no language like English for turning lies into legalisms. …If you’re a soft-hearted liberal, it’s enlightened charity. If you’re a tough-minded conservative, you cannot pamper the losers; they must pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Both “sides� re-enforce the status quo assumption.
[3] “Different Western societies�: of course Peterson relies on Western countries, severing the imperialist relationships with the Global South. Crude country vs. country comparisons also hide such relationships, historical context, etc. “Equality� becomes internal to the country, so Sweden is the most equal country in the world, despite its global trade relations.
[4] “free-for-all capitalism�: this is literally the only time “capitalism� is used in this entire book that has any inkling of substance. For the 3 other times, the term is used in throw-away remarks (“The dominance hierarchy is not capitalism. It’s not communism either.�; “Don’t blame capitalism�; “They adopt a single axiom: government is bad, immigration is bad, capitalism is bad, patriarchy is bad.�).
--Peterson continues [emphases added]:
I think, as well (on what might be considered the leftish side), that the incremental remake of university administrations into analogues of private corporations is a mistake [lol, when capitalism directly affects you, as a university professor]. I think that the science of management is a pseudo-discipline. I believe that government can, sometimes, be a force for good, as well as the necessary arbiter of a small set of necessary rules [1]. Nonetheless, I do not understand why our society is providing public funding to institutions and educators whose stated, conscious and explicit aim is the demolition of the culture that supports them[2]. Such people have a perfect right to their opinions and actions, if they remain lawful. But they have no reasonable claim to public funding [3]. If radical right-wingers were receiving state funding for political operations disguised as university courses, as the radical left-wingers clearly are, the uproar from progressives across North America would be deafening. [4]
[1] “government can, sometimes, be a force for good, as well as the necessary arbiter of a small set of necessary rules�: Here it is. Mainstream economics trap 101: government vs. markets. Authority vs. freedom/human nature. Socialism vs. capitalism, where Socialism is big government (right, the US military is peak Socialism). Any market failures can be trace to the government which is Socialism.
…Never mind how real-world capitalism has from the beginning required a growing state at every stage to force and protect its markets (esp. capitalism’s peculiar labour/land/money markets); all the direct violence (military, police, prisons, security intelligence) and abstract violence (capitalist property rights, money/debt, etc.). Real-world capitalism requires a capitalist state to protect it, try to keep its contradictions from imploding, and to bail out the capitalists during regular implosions.
[2] “demolition of the culture that supports them�: ah, yes, the homogenous “Western culture�, the meritocratic (surprised Peterson didn’t use this term) “dominance hierarchy� (which appears 19 times in the book; “dominance� appears 41 times), the ※� that balances the “cDz�. This misdirection is one of the most devious in its divisiveness. Peterson once again flattens the complex world into binaries. The “West� vs. the rest. “Christianity� vs other religions/non-religious. “Tradition� vs. modernity.
…By doing so, Peterson can claim his right-wing dominance hierarchy interpretation is the entire representation of the “West� (Socialists? Unions?)/“Christianity� (Liberation theology?)/“tradition� (Diverse traditions like Millenarian/Heretic movements? Luddites?), and his followers should defend his interpretation if they associate with the “West�/“Christianity�/“tradition�. Once again, reactionaries projecting their own biases, in this case the most vulgar use of “identity politics�. If you are “white� and/or “male� and feel the stress of “cDz�, you are under attack!
…So insidious to obscure the challenges to “dominance hierarchies�, many originating in the “West�/“Christianity�/“tradition�. These struggles are the pillars barely holding society together under the weight of capitalist chaos. Capitalism had to unleash violence at “home� as well, to force the creation and growth of the labour/land/money markets (“human nature�? Not even for the “West�). And some oppressed people, regardless of other identities and despite our contradictions, find ways to resist both the ※� and the “cDz� of dominance hierarchies (since both are made oppressive under dominance hierarchies) [bold emphases added]:
It wasn’t until nearly 400 years later [since capitalist privatizations at home in Britain, i.e. the Enclosures starting in 1500] that life expectancies in Britain finally began to rise. […] It happened slightly later in the rest of Europe, while in the colonised world longevity didn’t begin to improve until the early 1900s [decolonization]. So if [capitalist economic] growth itself does not have an automatic relationship with life expectancy and human welfare, what could possibly explain this trend?[3] “public funding�: once again, government vs. markets. Private funding, that’s freedom, even if its behemoth corporations completely intertwined with the capitalist state for direct and abstract violence.
Historians today point out that it began with a startlingly simple intervention […]: [public] sanitation. In the middle of the 1800s, public health researchers had discovered that health outcomes could be improved by introducing simple sanitation measures, such as separating sewage from drinking water. All it required was a bit of public plumbing. But public plumbing requires public works, and public money. You have to appropriate private land for things like public water pumps and public baths. And you have to be able to dig on private property in order to connect tenements and factories to the system. This is where the problems began. For decades, progress towards the goal of public sanitation was opposed, not enabled, by the capitalist class. Libertarian-minded landowners refused to allow officials to use their property, and refused to pay the taxes required to get it done.
The resistance of these elites was broken only once commoners won the right to vote and workers organised into unions. Over the following decades these movements, which in Britain began with the Chartists and the Municipal Socialists, leveraged the state to intervene against the capitalist class. They fought for a new vision: that cities should be managed for the good of everyone, not just for the few. These movements delivered not only public sanitation systems but also, in the years that followed, public healthcare, vaccination coverage, public education, public housing, better wages and safer working conditions. According to research by the historian Simon Szreter, access to these public goods � which were, in a way, a new kind of commons [social Commons] � had a significant positive impact on human health, and spurred soaring life expectancy through the twentieth century.
[4] "If radical right-wingers were receiving state funding": if it makes you feel any better, the Western funds pouring into foreign radical right-wingers far exceeds what is put into Western public education. We know by now you want to hide capitalism, but "liberalism" (i.e. cosmopolitan capitalism) seems pretty right-wing in how it dominates the economy (corporations and banks as private dictatorships), so relax.
3) Peterson, the Red Scare boomer?--As we have seen, we can take the entire book, give it a shake, and omissions/misdirections fall out from all over the place. I’ve had to omit many critiques, which I didn’t prioritize because others have already prioritized it, esp. the dominance hierarchy of patriarchy (see the wonderful youtube video "7. The Origins of Male Dominance and Hierarchy; what David Graeber and Jordan Peterson get wrong", by "What is Politics").
--Peterson’s geopolitics is the product of the Cold War’s Red Scare, with all its omissions/misdirections. So, I’ll conclude with the Western bubble; I explained in the first half how my privilege of having an immigrant perspective helped rescue me from certain reactionary traps in geopolitics. We already saw an example of Peterson’s fearmongering redistribution-leading-to-GULAGS. So, let’s take the worst Peterson can give:
It is deceit that produces the terrible suffering of mankind: the death camps of the Nazis; the torture chambers and genocides of Stalin and that even greater monster, Mao.…Let’s take Peterson’s greatest monster, Mao, and the Chinese revolution/Communist party. Beyond fear-mongering one-liners, what is the actual historical context? Start with the 2nd half of this review (in the comments) in case you get triggered: Hunger and Public Action
Quite a long review, I'll comment here to read it later.
That passage about pain was beautifully written - I can see why this guy is so dangerous despite having no idea what he's talking about when it comes to marx/postmodernism/lobsters etc.
James wrote: "That passage about pain was beautifully written - I can see why this guy is so dangerous despite having no idea what he's talking about when it comes to marx/postmodernism/lobsters etc."I like how you didn’t even give Peterson credit with lobsters�
But yes, exactly! Peterson’s passage is the existential angst (minus capitalism) version of Varoufakis� description of “experiential value� vs. “exchange value� [from Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails, emphases added]:
One very good example of this confusion is the blood market [referencing The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy]. In many countries donors voluntarily give blood free of charge because they feel compelled to help fellow citizens whose lives are at risk. In other countries donors are compensated for the blood they give with money. Where do you think more blood is given?
Before I’ve even finished asking the question, I bet you’ve already guessed the answer: it has been observed that in countries where blood donors are paid for the blood they donate, the quantity collected is significantly smaller than it is in countries where blood is donated voluntarily, without payment. It seems that payment discourages more donors who want to give their blood free of charge than it attracts donors who care for the money.
Those who confuse goods with commodities fail to understand why blood donations decrease when donors are paid. They are baffled by the fact that potential blood donors decide not to give blood just because they’ve been offered money in return. But what’s happening here is easy to understand if you recall the dive Captain Kostas asked of you. When he resorted to pleading with you to take a dive into the sea, at night, no less, so you could help him with his anchor, that sense of being a good, heroic kid made you overcome your fear of the dark sea and the inconvenience of undressing and getting all cold and wet and salty. It’s very possible you wouldn’t have done it if he’d said, ‘I’ll give you five euros to jump in the water.�
The same holds true in the case of donating blood. Many blood donors take pleasure from the idea of giving blood, but when they are offered a monetary sum for it, the shift from contribution to transaction ruins the pleasure, while the sum being offered isn’t enough to make up for it, let alone the time and pain of having a needle stuck into one’s arm.
Oscar Wilde wrote that a cynical person is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Our societies tend to make us all cynics. And no one is more cynical than the economist who sees exchange value as the only value, trivializing experiential value as unnecessary in a society where everything is judged according to the criteria of the market. [Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails]
Hey Kevin, I happen to be reading Erich Fromm's "The sane society" at the moment where he refers to run of the mill psychologists as the priests of the current age (not too dissimilar to catholic priests who lent legitimacy to the feudal order) who nudge people to "adjust" to the alienation rather than address systemic issues that cause profound dissatisfaction, anxiety and alienation of man in the first place.
Wondering what you'd make of Fromm's observation and if Peterson is the priest that we should be wary of ? Cheers!
Hi Kevin, too bad we can’t rate reviews. Yours would get way more stars than the book. You have my admiration for taking the time to actually dissect it. And also for sharing your personal story.
This book, together with others of the sort are dangerous. It doesn’t mean that we should ban them, far from it, but we need o create the critical thinking of people to observe the misdirections, the omissions, the contradictions just as you started doing here. Otherwise, the narrative comes up with readymade slogans that fit into society’s angst, the constant worrying and fear perpetuated by media. And everything plays perfectly into the status quo.
As you mention, to gain the critical thinking to cut through the lulling narrative you needed a strong education and the open mindedness provided by your upbringing and origins. I think that sharing views like this helps reducing the dangers these books represent.
Nishanth wrote: "Hey Kevin, I happen to be reading Erich Fromm's "The sane society" at the moment where he refers to run of the mill psychologists as the priests of the current age (not too dissimilar to catholic..."
Hey Nishanth, it’s been a while, hope you’re well!
--“psychologists as the priests of the current age�: Ah yes, I’ve raised the concern about how swamp-monsters-for-the-status-quo keep emerging from such realms: Peterson (clinical psychologist), Steven Pinker (cognitive psychologist), Sam Harris (neuroscientist)�
1) Yes, I’m using a small sample size, but I do take great pleasure at the (more technical) critiques of those entire fields being plagued by biases (completely over-reporting positive findings)� sorry I can’t use external links in comments:
-ex. John Ioannidis (a god-like figure in meta-research, who sadly fell down a rabbit hole with COVID-19), summarized in the article “Ioannidis Questions Strength of Psychology and Neuroscience Literature�:
In all, the combination of low [statistical] power, selective reporting and other biases and errors that we have documented in this large sample of papers in cognitive neuroscience and psychology suggest that high (false report probability) FRP are to be expected in these fields. The low reproducibility rate seen for psychology experimental studies in the recent Open Science Collaboration is congruent with the picture that emerges from our data.�-ex. Ben Goldacre’s Guardian article “The statistical error that just keeps on coming�:
How often? Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was. They broadened their search to 120 cellular and molecular articles in Nature Neuroscience, during 2009 and 2010: they found 25 studies committing this fallacy, and not one single paper analysed differences in effect sizes correctly.2) On the social level, it seems clear these psychologists can only intervene on the individual level (“nudge people to "adjust" to the alienation�, as you rightly point out), whereas so much of the root issues stem from the environmental/structural level (“systemic issues�).
These errors are appearing throughout the most prestigious journals for the field of neuroscience. How can we explain that? Analysing data correctly, to identify a "difference in differences", is a little tricksy, so thinking generously, we might suggest that researchers worry it's too longwinded for a paper, or too difficult for readers. Alternatively, less generously, we might decide it's too tricky for the researchers themselves.
But the darkest thought of all is this: analysing a "difference in differences" properly is much less likely to give you a statistically significant result, and so it's much less likely to produce the kind of positive finding you need to look good on your CV, get claps at conferences, and feel good in your belly. Seriously: I hope this is all just incompetence.
…It becomes that much more dangerous when someone like Peterson sneaks in his own framing on the environmental/structural level! (i.e. hierarchies, human nature, value systems).
...Even though I’d give economists the crown of capitalism’s high priests, certainly there is great misuse for such psychologists.
--Fromm: interesting choice, I’ve yet to dive into psychoanalysis but I’m looking forward to reading A People's History of Psychoanalysis: From Freud to Liberation Psychology, since I try to start with big-picture synthesis.
Cristian wrote: "Hi Kevin, too bad we can’t rate reviews. Yours would get way more stars than the book. You have my admiration for taking the time to actually dissect it. And also for sharing your personal story. ..."
Cheers Cristian!
--Your point on not banning such books reminds me how there’s definitely a taboo/miseducation of, for example, Nazism, as a pure evil detached from histories/societies/humans.
…And this is indeed dangerous because future generations just treat it as a label to hush up or toss around, missing how real its processes are, so they will fail to identify how it manifests in various contexts.
--And regarding the status quo benefitting, all this noise sure does make it difficult for clear, critical thinking. You can feel that anxiety as soon as you enter social media, your pulse quickens as you start scrolling. That’s why I’m always inspired by those who can cut through the noise.
-Ex. recently I’m finally catching up on “What is Politics?� youtube/podcast after numerous recommendations.
I'm doing very well , hope you are doing great.Thanks as always for your detailed response , synthesis from multiple sources and recommendations for further reading . I will add them to my list. I agree , economists are indeed the high priests of our times.
I stumbled onto Fromm while looking for advise on love :) and found his book "Art of loving" to be outstanding. I quickly moved onto his "sane society" where he expertly combines the insights of Freud and Marx - which makes for incisive social commentary I have to say.
P.S : I keep tabs on your excellent reviews, pls keep it going.
Cheers!
13. Don't get addicted to benzos14. Don't let your grifting daugher talk you into an all-meat diet
Thank you, Kevin for another illuminating deconstruction of capitalist mythos. Kudos to you for wading through all of Peterson's bad faith so that you could fully analyze it! I find your critiques very rewarding and stimulating.One point I would like to add: there is a real difference between psychology helping people "adjusting to the alienation" and treatment for biochemical mental illness. I'm not denying the existence of the former, especially in the realm of "self-help" (and most crudely in the phrase "retail therapy") but I wouldn't want anybody who is clinically depressed to be dissuaded from treatment.
But, please continue with the fascinating and enlightening critiques!
Kevin wrote: "13. Don't get addicted to benzos14. Don't let your grifting daugher talk you into an all-meat diet"
If only Peterson's sequel was that honest, I might actually read it.
Jon wrote: "Thank you, Kevin for another illuminating deconstruction of capitalist mythos. Kudos to you for wading through all of Peterson's bad faith so that you could fully analyze it! I find your critiques ..."Cheers Jon!
RE: “there is a real difference between psychology helping people "adjusting to the alienation" and treatment for biochemical mental illness�:
--Ah, very important topic to unpack!
--In a way it’s similar to when I mock “eDzԴdzٲ� as high priests for capitalism; I have to then rely on a supplemental section unpacking the various economic schools-of-thought and their lineage (which adds up to a long review).
...I surely would not condemn all of economic thought, as my review is based on a critical political economy framework(!), i.e. critical/materialist Leftist/Marxist analysis of capitalism (which I also mention has more respect for the processes of “Classical economics�, whereas modern “economics� only vulgarizes the pro-capitalist conclusions of “Classical economics� while throwing away their processes).
--So when “psychologists� was brought up in the comments, it was indeed in the context of misuse. I didn’t have space to unpack “psychology� in the review (ex. Peterson on parenting/trauma), so I linked a review unpacking Peterson vs. Gabor Maté (physician with focus in addiction/trauma/childhood development/mental illness): The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture
--Even besides from emergency “treatment for biochemical mental illness� (which is still very tangled with social/environmental), I would not even condemn individualist coping mechanisms which we all need and perform in various ways as we all live in capitalism/dominance hierarchies.
...Side note: there's a leftist perspective that even capitalists are not liberated within capitalism in the sense that any liberatory personal intentions (ex. liberate their workers, respect nature's cycles) they may have are constrained by capitalism's pathological logic of endless accumulation, so stepping off their own hamster wheel will have them replaced by another capitalist.
--The question becomes (1) purpose and (2) alternative paths not taken.
…A clear example is “RULE 2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping� :
--Once again, rather general self-help ideal� here’s the section headings revealing how it devolves in practice:
i) “WHY WON’T YOU JUST TAKE YOUR DAMN PILLS?�: which basically wraps up the RULE 2 self-help ideal of the need for self-care.
ii) “The Oldest Story and the Nature of the World�
iii) “The Domain, Not of Matter, but of What Matters�
iv) “Chaos and Order: Personality, Female and Male� [oh boy…]
v) “The Garden of Eden�
vi) “The Naked Ape�
vii) “Good and Evil�
viii) “A Spark of the Divine�
…now, many casual readers just retain section (i) the need for self-care, which indeed can be a transformative personal message, which is why I tried to distinguish my review as focusing on the subsequent political world-views/alternative paths not taken, not the initial lure of individualist self-help.
Just read and commented on your review of Maté. I gather that both he and Peterson are public figures in Canada. This is my first exposure to Peterson, and the idea of him debating Zizek makes me imagine scenarios worthy of Monty Python."...I tried to distinguish my review as focusing on the subsequent political world-views/alternative paths not taken, not the initial lure of individualist self-help."
I see that. I guess I have a tendency to react to statements about the reality of mental illness. But Maté's focus on an overriding toxic culture is absolutely essential as well - guess I need to read that!
Nishanth wrote: "I'm doing very well , hope you are doing great.Thanks as always for your detailed response , synthesis from multiple sources and recommendations for further reading . I will add them to my list. ..."
Cheers Nishanth, you’ll need to post more reviews so we can socialize the labour of reading :) …I’m curious what insights you’ve gleamed from…Fromm, as I don’t know if I’ll ever get to him.
Jon wrote: "Just read and commented on your review of Maté. I gather that both he and Peterson are public figures in Canada. This is my first exposure to Peterson, and the idea of him debating Zizek makes me i..."Cheers Jon! You remind me the importance of context, where I crudely assumed Peterson was a household name given his online presence.
I think that’s why you were concerned with me critiquing Peterson in the context of clinical psychologist (his personal profession), instead of the context of his public profession as a “public intellectual� railing about gender pronouns and “Social Justice Warriors� derailing “Western civilization�.
Now, skillful con artists manipulate grains of truth, so we can skip Peterson’s distractions and directly address the concerns regarding “cancel culture� etc.
“What is Politics� has some useful videos posted on youtube:
�9. Cancel Culture and At-Will Termination�
�9.1 "Cancel Culture" is Corporate Management Culture�
�9.2 - When Social Control Masquerades as Social Justice�
Kevin, this might be my favorite review of yours ever. The section on suffering is exquisitely written. I can't thank you enough for all the work you're putting into these reviews.
Romain wrote: "Kevin, this might be my favorite review of yours ever. The section on suffering is exquisitely written. I can't thank you enough for all the work you're putting into these reviews."Cheers Romain!
As you know, note-taking and writing reviews help cement my reading process, basically projects I assign myself.
As I get more selective with which books I commit to (the one thing I can really control), it takes much longer to review than to read, and it’s tricky balancing this with the growing mountain of the unread
…That’s why I want to promote socializing this labour with sharing/discussions, so I’m glad you find it useful :)
Hey, just wanted to share Some More News great youtube video, debunking Jordan Peterson : "A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson - SOME MORE NEWS"! It's funny and it's on point. You guys might enjoy it ^^
Pseudo wrote: "Hey, just wanted to share Some More News great youtube video, debunking Jordan Peterson : "A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson - SOME MORE NEWS"! It's funny and it's on point. You guys might enjoy it ^^"Cheers! I used to follow “Some More News�; they definitely have well-crafted videos to expand on those inspired by Bernie Sanders in North America.
Indeed, I think a video critique of Peterson is a particularly useful format since Peterson exploits this format given its reach (esp. Youtube). I particularly like how this video goes back to Peterson’s 1999 Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, and also the presentation style of mirroring Peterson’s own devices (ex. parodying "Jungian archetypes").
I find mirroring as part of critiques (Peterson vs. Peterson, relying on their own quotes to set up your critiques) is particularly effective in communicating disagreements, by starting with a common language.
This is very interesting, and there are some great insights here. In general, I like Peterson, but I will definitely come back to read this thread when I have more time to dive in and really try to digest everything here.Also, I clicked "follow," Kevin, for you seem to have very thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned reviews and posts on various real-life issues, and I would like to read more of your takes. While I seem to disagree on some issues you are addressing, it is great to read opposing viewpoints from people who can present their views in such a well-reasoned manner.
Eriksson wrote: "This is very interesting, and there are some great insights here. In general, I like Peterson, but I will definitely come back to read this thread when I have more time to dive in and really try to..."Cheers Eriksson.
--For discussing social issues, social media seems designed for miscommunication.
i) Algorithms throw in our face truncated opinions from strangers with minimal context and trust-building.
ii) We immediately pick “sides� and jump to conclusions, like we are programmed to accept these rules in some winner-loser game.
…So, I appreciate you taking the time to actually explore other view-points. I’m glad you phrase it as “seem to disagree�.
…I can tell you that within the political “side� I gravitate to (“leftism�), there are heated debates, where “agree�/“disagree� become very contextual/conditional, and often too reductionist. Situations change, ideally we learn from mistakes, etc., so our viewpoints need to be constantly tested and reviewed.
...What specifically do you like about Peterson?
Reading Peterson:
--I allowed myself to be lulled into the narrative with all its vagueness and omissions, knowing that afterwards my reading process still requires me to sort through my notes and critically review the contents.
--Despite normally being a slow reader, I effortlessly flowed through the 400 pages. I actually enjoyed his writing style, along with a sense of nostalgia bringing me back to my adolescence listening to Carolla/Rogan, hanging out with friends after school in Canadian suburbia, aimlessly looking for something to do, etc. Overall, it felt� normal.
Reviewing Peterson:
--That was a year ago, and since then this book has clogged up my reviewing process (now a backlog of 30+ books). It’s eerie to realize that even now, armed with critical tools, this book may still seem benign if it wasn’t for my review process.
--It’s a relief to read Peterson’s book now instead of when I was more impressionable, so I can cut through the “self-help� rhetoric to examine how:
i) Long-term “status quo� power: tends to hide in abstraction to preserve social consent (‼Dz�, “enlightenment�, “meritocracy�, “stability�, “human nature�, “there is no alternative�, etc.).
ii) Contradictions: build up into crises, risking exposure.
iii) Role of the “reactionary� during crises: parody critique of symptoms while misdirecting to scapegoat visible distractions, thus preserving long-term power’s cloak of abstraction.
--The “self-help� packaging is not only the standard marketing for the hyper-individualism of capitalism. It also allows for vague ramblings of everything under the sun, so readers can cherry-pick what they want to hear and careful critics are swamped with a tangled mess (I already spend so much time formatting my reviews!). It’s similar to Ben Shapiro’s speed-talking tactic and capitalist media’s sound bites for campaign platforms; nuance is buried under noise.
…However, once you pick the right threads and pull, the mess starts to unravel�